Materialism: An alternative view of the world, if you are truly interested

Materialism: this world consists of matter only.

Dialectical materialism: matter is relative.

Historical materialism: matter is in motion.

Done.

-------------------------------------------------------

I've finally decided to systematically reorganize my view of the world, life and value after the deadly Jesus blow I sustained about 10 years ago. And I've planned to do this based on ... high school politics textbooks

Never did I ever consider seriously touching those books instead of shredding them into pieces (I would still be tempted to do that now if what I am reading was not an electronic version). Damn those high school monthly politics exams !

Yet ... of all the off-the-shelf philosophies available to me, what I agree with most is ... the dialectical and historical materialism taught in the high school textbooks ... Well, you can say BRAIN WASH all you want, but to me, just another evidence of the argument that the mind is matter and matter determines the mind.

So ... if you guys are TRULY interested in this alternative view of the world, your questions will be welcome. I will try to make sense of the textbook contents with the common sense I have over the 30 years of my life. Discussions will be great (but not for debates).

That is a relatively accurate representation of dialectical materialism and historical materialism ... or at least to me.

Or would you like to show what a more accurate representation is ? It will be appreciated.

Friedrich Engels described dialectics as "the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought," and formulated three main laws of dialectics: (i) the transformation of quantity into quality, by which is meant gradual quantities changes at a certain point cause sudden and evolutionary qualitative change; (ii) the unity of opposites, by which is meant that all reality contains opposites or contradictions bound together as unities; and (iii) the negation of the negation, by which is meant that when opposites clash one negates the other and is then itself negated and superceded by another opposite, but with previous negations all in some sense preserved. Engels' emphasis on dialectics as universal scientific laws led to a rigid, dogmatic interpretation of it that became known as dialectical materialism and dominated Marxist dialectical theory in the Second International and the Soviet Union. Josef Stalin dropped the law of the negation of the negation with its potential revolutionary implications a threat to his regime, and Mao Zedong made the transformation of quantity into quality a form of the law of the unity of opposites, and he made contradictions the central focus. Western Marxists have been bolder in their interpretations of dialectics and willingness to depart from Engels' laws and Soviet/Second international orthodoxy. (p.88-9, The A to Z of Marxism)

"Historical materialism" is not a term that Karl Marx himself used, but it has become the commonly used label for what Marx called his "materialist conception of history." The key idea of historical materialism is that the basis of society and of social change is production or productive activity. According to historical materialism the way in which we produce our food, clothing, shelter and goods for exchange is the basis of society, or to put this another way, the basis of society and social change is economics and technology. Consequently, if we want to understand history and society we must look first at production, because human beings are fundamentally producers, and human society is fundamentally a productive system and process. In order to understand the politics, the philosophy, the religion, morality, laws, institutions, culture and so on of a society, we must examine the way in which that society produces...Marx states that the forces of production develop, essentially as technology develops, and when this happens they come into conflict with the existing relations of production which now become a hindrance to the progress of the former. This conflict takes the form of a struggle between classes that are tied to either the new forces of production or the old relations of production. Revolutionary change will be the ultimate outcome with new relations of production and a new superstructure matching the new forces of production. Presented in these stark terms Marx appears to be putting forward a rigid form of determinism, where the forces of production determine the relations and these in tum produce a corresponding superstructure. It is clear, though, from Marx's historical analyses and various comments he makes that the process is far more complex, that the forces of production are not always the dominant determining factor, and that aspects of the superstructure may act back upon the economic base and even initiate change. (p.136-7, ibid.)

Your definitions are absurd. How do they embody dialectics? Historical materialism is essentially dialectical materialism as a philosophy of history. It doesn't mean "matter is in motion". And what does "matter is relative" mean and how is that dialectical?

Please don't quote back to me your high school textbook. Marxism is pretty much dead so I don't know what you hope to find in Marxian philosophy. Dialectical materialism and historical materialism have been critiqued to death. AFAIK historical materialism is completely dead as a philosophy of history and dialectical materialism doesn't appear in any introductory universitity textbooks on epistemology. I don't think many economists take Marxist economics seriously. And the wave of post-modernism in the humanities expelled Marxism because it was a "totalizing grand narrative".

RE: Materialism: An alternative view of the world, if you are truely interested

(12-12-2013 12:43 AM)Chippy Wrote:

(12-12-2013 12:04 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote: That is a relatively accurate representation of dialectical materialism and historical materialism ... or at least to me.

Or would you like to show what a more accurate representation is ? It will be appreciated.

Friedrich Engels described dialectics as "the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought," and formulated three main laws of dialectics: (i) the transformation of quantity into quality, by which is meant gradual quantities changes at a certain point cause sudden and evolutionary qualitative change; (ii) the unity of opposites, by which is meant that all reality contains opposites or contradictions bound together as unities; and (iii) the negation of the negation, by which is meant that when opposites clash one negates the other and is then itself negated and superceded by another opposite, but with previous negations all in some sense preserved. Engels' emphasis on dialectics as universal scientific laws led to a rigid, dogmatic interpretation of it that became known as dialectical materialism and dominated Marxist dialectical theory in the Second International and the Soviet Union. Josef Stalin dropped the law of the negation of the negation with its potential revolutionary implications a threat to his regime, and Mao Zedong made the transformation of quantity into quality a form of the law of the unity of opposites, and he made contradictions the central focus. Western Marxists have been bolder in their interpretations of dialectics and willingness to depart from Engels' laws and Soviet/Second international orthodoxy. (p.88-9, The A to Z of Marxism)

"Historical materialism" is not a term that Karl Marx himself used, but it has become the commonly used label for what Marx called his "materialist conception of history." The key idea of historical materialism is that the basis of society and of social change is production or productive activity. According to historical materialism the way in which we produce our food, clothing, shelter and goods for exchange is the basis of society, or to put this another way, the basis of society and social change is economics and technology. Consequently, if we want to understand history and society we must look first at production, because human beings are fundamentally producers, and human society is fundamentally a productive system and process. In order to understand the politics, the philosophy, the religion, morality, laws, institutions, culture and so on of a society, we must examine the way in which that society produces...Marx states that the forces of production develop, essentially as technology develops, and when this happens they come into conflict with the existing relations of production which now become a hindrance to the progress of the former. This conflict takes the form of a struggle between classes that are tied to either the new forces of production or the old relations of production. Revolutionary change will be the ultimate outcome with new relations of production and a new superstructure matching the new forces of production. Presented in these stark terms Marx appears to be putting forward a rigid form of determinism, where the forces of production determine the relations and these in tum produce a corresponding superstructure. It is clear, though, from Marx's historical analyses and various comments he makes that the process is far more complex, that the forces of production are not always the dominant determining factor, and that aspects of the superstructure may act back upon the economic base and even initiate change. (p.136-7, ibid.)

Your definitions are absurd. How do they embody dialectics? Historical materialism is essentially dialectical materialism as a philosophy of history. It doesn't mean "matter is in motion". And what does "matter is relative" mean and how is that dialectical?

Please don't quote back to me your high school textbook. Marxism is pretty much dead so I don't know what you hope to find in Marxian philosophy. Dialectical materialism and historical materialism have been critiqued to death. AFAIK historical materialism is completely dead as a philosophy of history and dialectical materialism doesn't appear in any introductory universitity textbooks on epistemology. I don't think many economists take Marxist economics seriously. And the wave of post-modernism in the humanities expelled Marxism because it was a "totalizing grand narrative".

Looking at your reply, there's only two words in my mind, "why bother ...". No, I shouldn't have thought this way. In fact, your reply is appreciated, just ... just with much disappointment ...

Any how I decide to reply to you again for two purposes: [1] Practicing the philosophy knowledge I grasped again, and [2] practicing expressing those ideas in English.

Firstly, I am glad that we don't have much disagreement on "Materialism: this world consists of matter only" so far.

The reason why I used the word "truly" in the title and the OP is to avoid replies like yours. Although the precautions didn't work, it shows that my mind indeed can correctly reflect (understand and predict) the matter, therefore an evidence against agnostics. Besides, your reply brought some new info to me after all, so it is definitely not as worthless as "why bother", i.e., relatively worthy of my effort. Look ! Another example of "the unity of the opposites" (I love it to have known this term) ! It is pretty nice that you have used the phrase "AFAIK" in the sentence "AFAIK historical materialism is completely dead as a philosophy of history and dialectical materialism doesn't appear in any introductory universitity textbooks on epistemology", making it not very arrogant, and also a good example of the benefits of dialectical materialism. And this is why "Dialectical materialism: matter is relative" is not that absurd.

Carl Marx died in 1883, 130 years ago. After his death, there are two World Wars, DNA, computer, nuclear bombs, the Three Gorges Dam, and a Chinese moon car about to land on the Moon. Well, based on dialectics, of course you can call it absurd or dead all you want. Yet it is always arguable whether this certain absurdity or death has changed. Likewise, I am certain that your mind will change after reading my reply as a tiny piece of history passes by (whether greatly or barely is a relativity matter). And this is why "Historical materialism: matter is in motion" will not be that absurd.

I hope those answers will qualify for a monthly high school politics exam ...

Edit: Just read all your rep details. Kinda of getting excited about where this little discussion is heading. Ah, the diversity of the possibilities of motion !

RE: Materialism: An alternative view of the world, if you are truly interested

(12-12-2013 01:47 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote: Looking at your reply, there's only two words in my mind, "why bother ...". No, I shouldn't have thought this way. In fact, your reply is appreciated, just ... just with much disappointment ...

So you are disappointed that I am not a Marxist? Marxism is MJB. Do you know what MJB is? No? MJB = More Jewish Bullshit

The Cultural Revolution was basically an act of cultural vandalism by Mao Zedong on Chinese culture motivated by his devotion to the Jewish bullshit that Marxism is. China is still recovering from the Marxist contamination. You learnt what you have about Marxism as part of a Maoist indoctrination programme. What you are reading is essentially Marxist dialectics for children. Read an adult-oriented book on Marxism and then read a critique.

China is a demonstration that historical materialism is false. China has moved from a centrally-planned economy to a mixed economy. That is the reverse of what historical materialism predicts. Look also at Russia. Is North Korea a Marxist-Leninist utopia or an Orwellian dystopia? I think the latter.

Why you would cling to a doctrine that led to the torture of your countrymen and the destruction of many classical Chinese cultural sites and artifacts is beyond me. The Great Leap Forward was a Great Leap Backward--it failed. And then we have the Great Chinese Famine which killed around 15 million of your countrymen. Hooray for Marxism! A great gift of the Jews to the Chinese.

RE: Materialism: An alternative view of the world, if you are truly interested

(12-12-2013 03:21 AM)Chippy Wrote:

(12-12-2013 01:47 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote: Looking at your reply, there's only two words in my mind, "why bother ...". No, I shouldn't have thought this way. In fact, your reply is appreciated, just ... just with much disappointment ...

So you are disappointed that I am not a Marxist? Marxism is MJB. Do you know what MJB is? No? MJB = More Jewish Bullshit

The Cultural Revolution was basically an act of cultural vandalism by Mao Zedong on Chinese culture motivated by his devotion to the Jewish bullshit that Marxism is. China is still recovering from the Marxist contamination. You learnt what you have about Marxism as part of a Maoist indoctrination programme. What you are reading is essentially Marxist dialectics for children. Read an adult-oriented book on Marxism and then read a critique.

China is a demonstration that historical materialism is false. China has moved from a centrally-planned economy to a mixed economy. That is the reverse of what historical materialism predicts. Look also at Russia. Is North Korea a Marxist-Leninist utopia or an Orwellian dystopia? I think the latter.

Why you would cling to a doctrine that led to the torture of your countrymen and the destruction of many classical Chinese cultural sites and artifacts is beyond me. The Great Leap Forward was a Great Leap Backward--it failed. And then we have the Great Chinese Famine which killed around 15 million of your countrymen. Hooray for Marxism! A great gift of the Jews to the Chinese.

RE: Materialism: An alternative view of the world, if you are truly interested

(12-12-2013 03:40 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: Um were you looking to expose yourself to a fusillade of irrelevant bullshit and invective from Resident Troll Chippy...? --only because I couldn't think of a better way to accomplish that.....

.....not that that's a problem, because all you have to do is stand up and call out his bullshit for him to tuck tail and run, but gawd, what a hassle...

I knew there would be such folks, yet not that well prepared for his coming ... Considering his past experience with Christianity, he has my sympathy for that, though.

RE: Materialism: An alternative view of the world, if you are truly interested

(12-12-2013 04:01 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote: OK, next one please.

Do you think this song and video adequately captures the dialectical relationship between the agents of law and order on the one hand and the agents of crime on the other? Is this an example of thesis clashing with anthithesis or is it rather an example of Marx's base-superstructure model where the organisation of police is part of the superstructure arising out of the capitalistic base, existing to serve the prevailing mode of production at the expense of the proletariat? Is the criminalised proletariat merely recapturing its misappropriated surplus value? In the class struggle is it just the revolutionary actvity of the proletariat being criminalised? Who are the "cops" and who are the "robbers"? Is Casey Tatum a revolutionary figure?